So all these people, who can't agree About any of the dumbshit that has been posted on these boards over the last decade, nothing nada, zip, zilch, bubkus, finally agree on something, and you think you know better. Delusional buddy....or you're just a troll.

First, people can and do agree on these boards. In fact, you can find many cases where a group of people agree on things all over this board over the last decade. ?

Second, how many people agree (or disagree) with something doesn't make it right (or wrong) just because of the number of people who agree (or disagree).

Third, I am neither delusional nor a troll. I merely present my own opinion that happens to be contrary to the majority opinion, and I happen to possess great skills in the arena of argument. This poses such a challenge to those who hold the contrary (and in this case majority) opinion that they become frustrated and quickly turn to classic fallacies in an attempt to handle the issue without ever having to admit they were shown to be wrong.

Many people love to use the majority to squash anyone who dares challenge them, but they sure don't like it very much when someone with real debate skills comes along and puts up a logical and rational argument against which they have no defense. Then they whine and cry and throw insults and do anything they can to dismiss the other person's position rather than actually trying to argue against it.

So once again: Perhaps instead of acting childish and trying to make fun of people, you should suck it up and either learn how to argue better or accept that you can't get the best of someone with better debate skills than you.

I happen to possess great skills in the arena of argument. This poses such a challenge to those who hold the contrary (and in this case majority) opinion that they become frustrated and quickly turn to classic fallacies in an attempt to handle the issue without ever having to admit they were shown to be wrong.

He doesn't even get that his arguments are illogical and full of the same fallacies he accuses everyone else of making...

In this case, his argument is based on a cornerstone assumption that homosexuality is a choice, determined by who one chooses as sexual partners. Homosexuality is not a choice, it's a biological fact. Michael Jackson may have been able to make himself appear to be a weird-looking white guy to someone who had no idea who he was, but it doesn't mean he was white. He was still genetically black.

In addition to being a horribly fallacious argument, it demonstrates a massive lack of empathy. It's very easy as a straight person to argue that marriage is, by tradition, between a man and a woman. Try putting it in reverse. How would you feel if the government told you "hey, we allow marriage, everyone is equally allowed to get married. But only to someone of the same gender. You can marry your sexual partner as long as you choose a man. We're not particularly concerned with the fact that you're attracted to women, not to men. We will only grant you power of attorney, tax benefits, and guaranteed custody rights if you marry a man. We're sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you." Sure, now you can "choose" to be homosexual by picking male sexual and civil partners. But that wouldn't make you gay. We know for a fact you are VERY opposed to being mistaken for a homosexual.

Bistiza, have you even considered the possibility that the reason we're considering what psychiatric disorders are most likely afflicting you is not, as you are so convinced, because we don't like having our beliefs challenged by your irrefutable logic? But that instead, perhaps, it's your inability to accept that your strongly-held beliefs are in fact supported by horribly poor arguments that stand up to no scrutiny? And that, since you cannot accept this, you convince yourself that your explanations are beyond reproach, in spite of the fact that they are in many cases downright laughable?

Or perhaps its just someone telling you a truth you can't handle, so you have to try to find some way to pass it off as something else.

You've chosen the ever-popular "you must have a psychological issue so I'll pretend to be Dr. Freud and do an internet diagnosis" route.

Seriously, when you're desperately trying to deny the truth in what I'm saying, at least try to be more original.

He doesn't even get that his arguments are illogical and full of the same fallacies he accuses everyone else of making

If this were true, you'd be able to point out the fallacies, as I have done when others commit them. Yet you haven't been able to do that, because all you want is to make wild accusations with nothing to back them up.

In this case, his argument is based on a cornerstone assumption that homosexuality is a choice, determined by who one chooses as sexual partners.

I established this as fact based on logical reasoning a long time ago, therefore it isn't an assumption. Try again.

Homosexuality is not a choice, it's a biological fact.

Not only have you NOT established this through any reasonable argument, as I already pointed out, a reasonable argument to the contrary HAS been established (by me).

So if you want to argue this position, you've got a lot of work to do. Then again, who are we kidding, both of us already know you won't even try. Once again, all you want is to argue a position with nothing to establish it.

Michael Jackson may have been able to make himself appear to be a weird-looking white guy to someone who had no idea who he was, but it doesn't mean he was white. He was still genetically black.

And we've also already debunked the idea that race and sexuality are comparable. You're many pages behind in this thread. Might want to go back and read for a while.

In addition to being a horribly fallacious argument, it demonstrates a massive lack of empathy.

First, let's clear up the idea that it's fallacious. You haven't made a single step to show it as such other than you stating you believe it to be true, which means nothing. When you want to come into a topic and make declarations against already established positions, you'd better be prepared to make your own arguments. You haven't done anything of the sort, so until you do, nothing you say regarding my argument can be taken seriously in even the most remote way.

Second, empathy isn't part of the argument, and people are entitled to feel however they wish. If you want to create a thread to discuss empathy, or empathy and sexuality, feel free to do so. Otherwise, stop trying to distract from the fact that you have what amounts to a lot of posturing and a non-argument and no real challenge to my position.

Sure, now you can "choose" to be homosexual by picking male sexual and civil partners. But that wouldn't make you gay. We know for a fact you are VERY opposed to being mistaken for a homosexual.

Actually, choosing to pick male partners WOULD make me gay. It doesn't matter if I'm opposed to being mistaken for a homosexual.

Here's a logical way to disprove what you're saying:

I'm also opposed to being mistaken for a criminal. However, if I choose to commit a series of crimes, I would be a criminal regardless of my opposition to being classified as one.

By the same reasoning, it also doesn't matter how opposed I am to being considering homosexual - if I take homosexual action, I am one regardless of how I feel.

Yes, it's a classic defense mechanism when someone with better debate skills completely lays waste to what you thought was a well-reasoned argument.

"Well, uh, you must be crazy and here is my personal diagnosis since I'm infinitely qualified to do that over the internet even though people with real qualifications sometimes can't do it in person."

Hilarious. Keep it coming. Next you'll respond by repeating the fallacy that since people posting here agree with you, then you must be right. The same predictable defense mechanisms all the time. Somehow it never gets old knowing my skills can reduce people to these pathetic tactics.

Bistiza, have you even considered the possibility that the reason we're considering what psychiatric disorders are most likely afflicting you is not, as you are so convinced, because we don't like having our beliefs challenged by your irrefutable logic?

No, because that's EXACTLY what it is. As I just said, it's a classic defense mechanism used by those who realize they can't argue effectively in any legitimate manner.

Interestingly enough it almost never happens in any legitimate debate forum but only on internet message boards by those who have strongly held opinions but lack the skills to defend them properly. They do fine against most people, especially if they are arguing from a majority position and therefore are rarely challenged, but if someone like me comes along they don't know what to do. They can't admit their position has been proven wrong because they hold strongly to it, so they have to defend it somehow even though they don't have the skills to do it legitimately. So they come up with anything they can to attack the person (which is a fallacy to begin with), and pretending to be Dr. Freud issuing a diagnosis is one of the classics.

But that instead, perhaps, it's your inability to accept that your strongly-held beliefs are in fact supported by horribly poor arguments that stand up to no scrutiny? And that, since you cannot accept this, you convince yourself that your explanations are beyond reproach, in spite of the fact that they are in many cases downright laughable?

If you would have presented a single viable challenge to anything I've said, I would gladly admit it. But it hasn't happened.

I'll challenge you again: Show real evidence, use logical reasoning, make any legitimate attempt to show how my argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny or is "laughable". Come up with SOMETHING other than your pathetic and predictable attempts to attack me personally.

You haven't done anything legitimate yet, and I shut down the only attempts made by others. Now you're trying to attack me personally because you don't have anything left.

Put up or shut up: There is no legit argument that stands up for you. If there is, provide it, because I've been holding strong on the same logical reasoning for many pages now and no one has even come close to showing it to be wrong with any legit argument.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/13/2013 8:27:00 AM (view original):If biz and dahs were to debate one another, would there be any words left for the rest of us? Would the world go silent except for their voices?

Can biz truly have zero self-awareness of how he really is, or is he just pulling everybody's leg with this act?

If it is just an act, one would think that some degree of "normalness" would mistakenly slip out occasionally. But he's been so consistent with his message that I'm really not sure . . . he just may really be this self delusional.